bobtfish at bobtfish.net
Sun Mar 23 08:13:08 EDT 2008
On 23 Mar 2008, at 03:50, Michel Fortin wrote:
> Le 2008-03-22 à 21:15, Fletcher T. Penney a écrit :
>> Any reason for including Text::MultiMarkdown and not the official
>> MultiMarkdown itself?
> Hum, because I just took what was bundled with Text::Markdown; it
> was easier that way and I though it was the same thing just
> packaged differently. Perhaps I shouldn't have.
It's the same thing in the same way that Text::Markdown is "just
markdown, packaged differently".
>> It would be useful for finding any areas where the two versions
>> differ from each other, in addition to where MMD differs from
>> other implementations.
> But should we expect any difference? I agree that I should be using
> the official MultiMarkdown -- and I've added it now --, but is it
> still worth keeping Text::MultiMarkdown then?
Yes, please also keep Text::MultiMarkdown. This is actually *much
more* different to fletcher's MultiMarkdown than Text::Markdown is to
Markdown.pl - as with my refactoring, MultiMarkdown is able to just
overload / hook into Text::Markdown (as I've created the relevant
hook points), as opposed to being a copy & paste of original markdown
with bits stuck on the side.. (No offense meant here - I'm only able
to do this as I'm *also* maintaining a fork of Markdown).
Again, I'm aiming form *zero difference* between Text::MultiMarkdown
and 'official' MultiMarkdown, except for bugs that I've fixed (so we
shouldn't *expect* difference, and if it's found, and I don't have
an explicit test in my distribution to cover it - it's a bug in my
code and I *will fix it*).. My code does pass all of Fletcher's test
suite, so I'm sure it's pretty similar. ;)
As previously noted, s/MultiMarkdown/Markdown/g; s/Fletcher/John/g;
in the paragraph above is also be true.
More information about the Markdown-Discuss